5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and resides in Moscow.
6.  In September 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia from Uzbekistan and settled in the Moscow Region. Until December 2009 he was officially registered with the Russian migration authorities in Moscow. According to the Government, he subsequently resided without formal registration in the Moscow region. According to the applicant, he always complied with the legal requirement for registration at one’s place of residence.
7.  In the meantime, on 20 November 2009 the Uzbek authorities charged the applicant in absentia under Articles 159 § 3(b) and 244-2 § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code, which punish calls to overthrow the constitutional order of Uzbekistan and involvement in religious, extremist, separatist and other banned organisations (see paragraphs 78-79 below). The applicant was accused of being member of a group called Warriors of Islam which, apparently, had been prohibited in Uzbekistan and had been classified as an extremist religious organisation by the Uzbek authorities. It is stated in the information note sent by the Uzbek authorities to their Russian counterparts that this group was a faction of the Islamic Party of Turkestan (formerly called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan), which had been banned in Uzbekistan.
8.  The Uzbek decision listing the charges against the applicant reads as follows:
“... [The applicant] was actively engaged in spreading propaganda in the Navoi region. These activities were aimed at securing the confidentiality of information relating to the group’s actions, securing strict compliance with the orders issued by the group’s supporters, ensuring the return [of society] to the roots of Islam and making everyday life based solely on the rules of the Koran. His activities were also aimed at political and armed struggle against those who oppose the [group’s] ideas and [those] who are treated as enemies of Islam. His propaganda activities had the goal of uniting all Muslims and creating the united State of the “Islamic Caliphate” governed by rules of Shariah; [all the] while considering the democratic changes in Uzbekistan [brought about] by means of laws wrong and [illegitimate].
In particular, [the applicant] participated in the activities of “communes” run by his group in the Navoi region. Having joined others in an organised criminal group, he studied printed material produced by the group’s supporters. He was active in spreading propaganda among people having no stable opinion, encouraging them to join the group and promoting the group’s ideas. All these had as their subsequent aim the overthrow of the constitutional order ...
Also, in 2008 together with his accomplices within the group [the applicant] participated in the group’s meetings, [which were] aimed at the armed overthrow of the constitutional order ...”
9.  On 20 November 2009 the applicant’s name was put on a wanted list.
10.  By a decision of 23 November 2009 the Navoi Town Court of Uzbekistan ordered the applicant’s detention and that he be held in remand centre no. 7 in the town of Kattakurgan.
11.  According to the applicant, in November 2009 he called his relatives in Uzbekistan and learnt that he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities on criminal charges.
12.  In April 2010 the applicant requested that the regional migration authority grant him refugee status. The applicant was given a certificate confirming that his application for refugee status was being processed.
13.  The applicant submitted to the migration authority that he had left Uzbekistan because of numerous arrests since September 2009 in the village of Talkok, where he had been residing at the time. Several people had been arrested on various charges, for instance in relation to drug trafficking. The applicant also affirmed that: he was not a member of any political or religious organisation; he had not taken part in any opposition movement; and he had not distributed any political or religious literature. Lastly, he stated that he feared returning to Uzbekistan, where he would be placed in detention.
14.  On 21 May 2010 the applicant was arrested and detained in relation to the criminal proceedings pending against him in Uzbekistan (see paragraph 19 below). It is unclear whether the applicant amended – in any significant manner – his refugee application on account of the circumstances relating to these proceedings and the Uzbek extradition request.
15.  By a decision of 5 July 2010 the migration authority rejected the refugee application in the following terms:
“The applicant has not presented any facts concerning his fear of political or religious persecution. He indicated during the interview that he did not know of any political parties and that he had not been a member of any religious or non-governmental organisations; he had not been the victim of any violent incidents. Having regard to the reasons for his departure from Uzbekistan, it does not appear that he was persecuted on account of his political views or religious beliefs.
The applicant is of the Islamic faith, which is the dominant religion in his country. Nothing prevents him from praying and going to a mosque. He is not involved in any political activity.
Also, regarding the allegation concerning the arrests in September 2009 and that the applicant had been ordered to go to a police station, it does not appear that any repressive measures were taken against him.
The Federal Migration Authority (FMA) has provided the following information concerning the political, social, economic and migration situation in Uzbekistan:
80% of the population are Sunni Muslims. The FMA has no facts in its possession regarding persecution on religious or political grounds. Article 31 of the Uzbek Constitution and other laws provide for civic rights and freedoms for all citizens, irrespective of their ethnicity, religious beliefs or political views. The Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act contains clear rules concerning religious organisations, their interaction with the State and fully guarantees the right to manifest one’s religion, alone or in community with others ... Uzbekistan has ratified, without reservations, all six main UN treaties concerning human rights and regularly submits reports to the competent agencies of the United Nations. In total, Uzbekistan has ratified over sixty international treaties relating to human rights. Uzbekistan is not a party to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Protocol. However, in November 1999 they signed the Charter of European Security, thus undertaking to protect refugees. In 1996 Uzbekistan became a party to the UN Convention against Torture.
There can be various understandable reasons compelling a person to leave the country of his origin, but only one qualifies [that person to fall within] the notion of refugee. The expression “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted” makes all other reasons irrelevant.
The applicant has not adduced convincing grounds for leaving his country of nationality for reasons which would fall within the scope of section 1 § 1(1) of the Refugees Act ...”
16.  On 8 July 2010 the migration authority dispatched a letter notifying the applicant of the refusal. The letter also indicated that the refusal could be challenged before the FMA or a court and that in the absence of other legal grounds for staying on the territory of Russia the applicant would have to leave it. Apparently, the applicant received this letter but did not apply for judicial review.
17.  Instead, in October 2010 the applicant requested that the migration authority grant him temporary asylum in Russia (see paragraph 44 below). The migration authority rejected this request on 20 December 2010. The applicant did not challenge this refusal before a court.
18.  In March 2012 the applicant lodged a new application for temporary asylum. On 5 June 2012 the migration authority granted the applicant temporary asylum in Russia, considering that it was necessary in order to provide a legal basis for his continued presence in Russia and Russia’s compliance with the Court’s indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Such temporary asylum should remain in force until delivery of the final judgment by the Court and, in any event, no longer than until 5 June 2013.
19.  The applicant was arrested in the town of Krasnogorsk in the Moscow Region on 21 May 2010. The actual circumstances leading to the applicant’s arrest remain unclear. The arrest record reads as follows:
“Identity document: an information document concerning the search for the religious extremist (passport details); a document concerning a pending application for refugee status ...
Grounds and reasons for arrest: [the applicant] is subject to an arrest warrant procedure; a detention order [has been] issued by [an Uzbek] court ...
{In pre-printed letters} I have been informed that under Article 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I am entitled to know the accusation against me, ... to have legal assistance from the moment indicated in Article 49 §§ 2 and 3.1 of the Code, to have meetings in private with counsel before my first questioning ...
I have been informed that I am suspected of offences directed against the constitutional order of Uzbekistan and [of the] creation of a criminal community ...”
The record bears the applicant’s signature and a note by him saying that he had read the documents and had no comment on them.
20.  On the same date, the Russian authorities contacted their Uzbek colleagues, informing them of the applicant’s arrest and seeking confirmation of the Uzbek authorities’ intention to request the extradition of the applicant. That same day, the Uzbek authorities submitted a document requesting the applicant’s detention to the Russian authorities.
21.  The applicant also signed, apparently on 22 May 2010, another document entitled Notification of rights to the suspect. On the same date, the applicant was interviewed by a deputy town prosecutor and confirmed to him in writing that he had been informed of his rights not to incriminate himself and to have the assistance of an interpreter. He waived the assistance of an interpreter, stating that he could read, speak and understand Russian.
22.  On 23 May 2010 the Krasnogorsk Town Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention, doing so with reference to the Uzbek detention order of 23 November 2009 and Article 61 of the 1993 Minsk Convention (see paragraph 75 below).
23.  According to the applicant, after his arrest his procedural rights were not explained to him and he was unable to have the assistance of a lawyer until some time later. In the applicant’s submission, on 10 June 2010 the staff of the detention facility where he was being kept refused to allow lawyer L. to visit him, stating that he had no formal authorisation for that visit from the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office.
24.  On 28 June 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office received a formal extradition request from the Uzbek authorities, which contained the following statement:
“We guarantee that, as required under Articles 16, 17 and 24 of the Uzbek Code of Criminal Procedure, [the applicant] will not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the extradition request is not aimed at persecuting him for political reasons, [or] on grounds relating to race, religious beliefs or nationality. In compliance with Article 66 of the [Minsk] Convention he will not be surrendered to another country without Russia’s consent ... Since 1 January 1998 the death penalty has been abolished in Uzbekistan ...”
25.  On 29 June 2010 the Krasnogorsk Town Prosecutor considered the applicant’s detention again and ordered, without specifying the duration, the applicant’s detention under Article 466 § 2 of the CCrP (see paragraph 56 below).
26.  On 20 July 2010 the town prosecutor applied to the Krasnogorsk Town Court, seeking authorisation of the applicant’s continued detention. By a decision of 21 July 2010 the Town Court confirmed the lawfulness of the prosecutor’s previous decisions ordering the applicant’s detention. Referring to Articles 109 and 466 § 1 of the CCrP, the court extended the applicant’s detention “until 21 August 2010 to amount in total to three months” (apparently, counting from the date of the applicant’s arrest). Lawyer B. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant.
27.  Before the expiry of the previous detention order, on 13 August 2010 the acting town prosecutor sought an extension of the applicant’s detention because the extradition proceedings were still pending. On 27 August 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 November 2010. Lawyer P. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant.
28.  Before the expiry of the previous detention order, the regional prosecutor sought an extension of the applicant’s detention. On 18 November 2010 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 February 2011, to amount in total to nine months. Lawyer S. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant.
29.  On 18 February 2011 the Town Court examined an extension request from the regional prosecutor and extended the applicant’s detention until 21 May 2011, to amount in total to twelve months. Lawyer M. was present at the detention hearing and acted as counsel for the applicant.
30.  Apparently, no request for participation in the above court hearings concerning the applicant’s detention had been submitted by lawyer L. The transcripts of the above hearings do not contain any request from the applicant to appoint L. or to dismiss the appointed lawyers for any reason.
31.  On an unspecified date, lawyer L. started to represent the applicant in the extradition proceedings.
32.  On 16 May 2011 the Moscow Regional Court examined submissions from L. and extended the applicant’s detention until 21 November 2011, concluding that, if at large, the applicant would flee justice. The court also noted that the Court had made an indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, thus (temporarily) preventing enforcement of the extradition order which had become final on 17 March 2011. The applicant appealed. On 7 July 2011 the Appeal Section of the Regional Court upheld the detention order. Apparently, the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal.
33.  On 21 November 2011 the acting town prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release from custody due to the expiry of the maximum eighteen-month statutory period of detention. The applicant was released on the same day.
34.  In the meantime, on 5 October 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office issued an extradition order in respect of the applicant. The order indicated that there were no obstacles to extraditing the applicant under Russian law and the international treaties binding Russia.
35.  According to the applicant, the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office did not allow his lawyer L. access to the extradition file until 12 October 2010, and, even after the lawyer was granted access to the materials in question, he was unable to obtain a copy of the extradition order. It appears that the applicant complained of these matters to higher prosecutor’s offices on several occasions.
36.  In a letter of 26 November 2010 the Moscow Region Prosecutor’s Office replied to the applicant’s lawyer, stating that his complaints against the detention centre and the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office had been examined and resolved. In particular, he had been authorised to meet with the applicant and obtain access to the materials concerning the extradition proceedings. The letter also stated that the applicant’s lawyer could receive the extradition order of 5 October 2010 from the applicant, or make a copy at his own expense from the extradition file.
37.  In a letter of 30 November 2010 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant’s lawyer that his complaints against the Krasnogorsk Prosecutor’s Office and the detention centre were being examined. The extradition order of 5 October 2010 was enclosed with this letter.
38.  The applicant challenged the extradition order before the Moscow Regional Court, stating that he had not been involved in the offences imputed to him, and, at the time of his departure from Uzbekistan, his name had not been on a wanted list.
39.  On 25 January 2011 the Regional Court held a hearing and heard submissions from the applicant and his lawyer, L. The Regional Court confirmed the extradition order in the following terms:
“The Uzbek extradition request is in compliance with the European Convention on Extradition and Article 58 of the Minsk Convention ... The case file contains assurances from the requesting State that the extradition request does not aim at persecuting [the applicant] for political reasons, [or] on grounds relating to race, religion or nationality. The Uzbek authorities have given guarantees that in the event of his extradition [the applicant] would not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; he would be prosecuted only for the offences mentioned in the extradition request ... The migration authority has dismissed [the applicant’s] application for refugee status ... He has not sought judicial review of this refusal ... He has not sought judicial review of the refusal of temporary asylum ...
The allegation concerning human-rights violations in Uzbekistan has been examined by this court. The general and political situation in that country has also been taken into consideration ... However, the [applicant’s] allegation in itself is not a reason for granting his challenge to the extradition order ...
The extradition request contains a statement that [the applicant] was/is not being persecuted for political reasons or on grounds relating to race, religion or nationality and that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
[The applicant] and his lawyer have not adduced any objective reasons which would allow [this court] to doubt the assurances made by the Uzbek authorities ... When examining [the applicant’s] applications for refugee status and temporary asylum, the authorities established he had not adduced any well-founded reasons [to the effect] that he had left his country for reasons relating to fears of being persecuted on account of his race, religious beliefs, nationality or his belonging to a specific social group or due to his political views ...”
40.  On 17 March 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 25 January 2011, largely relying on the reasoning of the first-instance court.